Saturday, August 25, 2007

Just listening to Labour MP Dover Samuels calling in to Radio Live and vigorously regaling Jackson and Tamihere with his thoughts about these latest atrocities. He says he and a lot of other MPs knew that Sue Bradford's bill would make not one iota of difference. There are no academic solutions. There are no do-gooder solutions. And the Maori Party and their 'aroha' can go jump. There you go.

2 Comments:

He voted for the bill and I presume that he is saying that many of the others who disagreed with it voted for it as well. This gives the public a little window of insight into what a bunch of lying, cheating, immoral people our leaders and law makers are.

Each country get the government it deserves. We have this bunch of clowns because, at election time, the population couldn't care less and appeared satisfied with the lot that offered the biggest bribe. Samuels' admission is an indictment on the Labour Party caucus. They didn't, don't, and will never represent productive, modern New Zealand.

Friday, August 24, 2007

from Craig Smith, Family IntegrityClick here for the full documentClick here for a copy of the new Section 59Click here for a a copy of the Police Guidelines for the new Section 59 Number One: What Is Meant by "Correction"? A. Is it possible to make an arrest or prosecute or secure a guilty verdict against a parent for using force with his/her child for the purpose of correction even though the term "correction" is not defined? B. Does Parliament need to define "correction" before Police will know how to recognize it or identify it? Apparently "correction" used to include all the purposes listed in the present Section 59(1)(a-d). If the meaning of "correction" no longer includes those things, then what does it mean? Could it mean the same as "discipline", "training", "punishment" or "guidance"? C. Are the Police going to arrest parents for "correcting" their children using a Police working definition of "correction"? If so, what is that working definition? Will Police then modify their working definition of "correction" once a body of case law is built up and precedents established? D. What if a parent is thoroughly, earnestly and honestly convinced that "correction" of a child is more than just "incidental to good care and parenting" (Section 59(1)(d)), but is an essential part of "good care and parenting"? Are the parent's beliefs and/or convictions about this protected in law? E. Is "correction" now not to be considered part of "good care and parenting" (Section 59 (1)(d)), unless it can be accomplished without the use of any force at all? F. On page 2 of the recently issued Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03), under the heading "Preventing" it says, "force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child." Are parents now to understand that neither "discipline" nor "punishment" can be considered part of "good care and parenting" unless they can be accomplished without the use of any force?

Number Two: What Is Meant By Reasonable Force?A. Does the term "Force" as it is used in Section 59 of the Crimes Act refer to only physical force or does it also refer to non-physical force such as gestures, intimidation, verbal warnings, threats, insinuations, emotional manipulation, appeals to religion or culture or tradition or concepts of right and wrong? B. On page 2 of the recently issued Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03), under the heading "Preventing" it says, "force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child." What if the parent uses force after the event for the purpose of "preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage" at any time in the future "in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence" or "in offensive or disruptive behaviour" as per Section 59(1)(b) & (c)? Could force used for this purpose be legally justified under the new Section 59? C. On page 3 of the Police Circular, under the heading "Inconsequential offences where there is not public interest in prosecuting", it says, "The use of objects/weapons to smack a child…would not be inconsequential". This is obviously in reference to Section 59(4). Do Section 59(4) and this comment from the Circular apply equally to Section 59(1)(a-d) as well as to Section 59(2), or do they apply only to Section 59(2)? D. Does the "reasonable force in the circumstances" of Section 59(1)(a)-(d) mean parents can legally employ implements and/or smacking to accomplish the purposes listed, as long as the force used is reasonable in the circumstances?

Number Three: If There Is Reasonable Doubt, Are Parents Therefore Automatically Guilty?A. Section 59(3) says Sub-Section 2 must prevail over Sub-Section 1. Does this mean that if it is unclear to a Police Officer contemplating making an arrest of a parent who has used force with a child or if it is unclear to a jury trying to decide if the force used by a parent with a child was legally justifiable, if there is a doubt as to whether the use of force was for the purpose of preventing (for example) offensive behaviour or for the purpose of correction, that the interpretation of correction must prevail? B. Does this mean that, contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries and Police Officers in these cases will be required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt about the purpose?

Bob Dylan's song "The Times, They are a-Changin'" accurately described the turbulent 1960s in America. Today, countries like New Zealand and Germany are embracing their own times of change as they take from parents the God-given right to discipline and educate their children.

The New Zealand Parliament recently followed the lead of many European Union countries when it made spanking of children, or "smacking" as they call it, a criminal offense. One Parliament member, Pita Sharples, hailed the new law as an important step toward a "brave" new world. "Our support will not be popular with many people ... but we are asking New Zealand to be brave, to look at the possibility of a culture where we don't hit our children."

In Germany, as WorldNetDaily has reported, families who seek to homeschool their children are battling a government that claims it must prevent "parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions." Parents of homeschooling families, many of whom are Christian, are being arrested and their children forcibly removed to public schools and foster homes because Germany claims its "obligation to provide for education" includes the exclusive right to produce "responsible citizens who participate in a democratic and pluralistic society" – a category that apparently excludes homeschoolers. The European Court of Human Rights gave its stamp of approval last year to this recent tyranny by the German government

Even some in America are trying to emulate these assaults on parental authority. In February of this year, California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber proposed a law that would make spanking of children younger than 3 years old a criminal offense punishable by a fine and/or jail time. Fortunately, the bill did not pass this time. And in many states there are increasing attempts to regulate and restrict the growing trend of homeschooling, which seems to pose a threat to proponents of government-monopolized education.

Our Western legal heritage has always recognized that the law of nature and nature's God has given parents – and not the state – the authority to control the education and discipline of their children. Any government usurpation of that family jurisdiction is an unwarranted abuse of power that runs contrary to historical, legal and biblical precepts.

In his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (1765), Sir William Blackstone wrote that while parents have duties to their children with respect to "their maintenance, their protection, and their education," the duty to provide an education is by far "the greatest importance of any." Blackstone further explained that a parent would not confer any considerable benefit upon his child if, after bringing him into the world, "he entirely neglects his culture and education, and suffers him to grow up like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others and shameful to himself."

The duty to provide an education for one's child springs directly from the biblical requirement to "[t]rain up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." In Deuteronomy 6:7, we are taught the necessity of teaching God's law "diligently unto thy children," and in Ephesians 6:4 to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."

If a parent chooses to educate his or her child outside of the home, Blackstone explains that the parental authority is then delegated "to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child; who is then in loco parentis [in the place of a parent]." Government schools, therefore, have no inherent right or duty to educate children, but operate solely on that authority delegated to them by the parents. They certainly have no authority, as the German schools claim, to squelch "separate philosophical convictions" cherished by parents who choose to exercise their authority to teach their children at home.

Regarding discipline, Blackstone noted that a parent "may lawfully correct his child, being under age, in a reasonable manner, for this is for the benefit of his education." Of course, child abuse and physical mistreatment are not considered to be "in a reasonable manner" and are rightfully declared to be unlawful. But reasonable discipline, including spanking, should never be prohibited by law.

The Bible is explicit that spanking is part of the authority of a parent. "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him" (Proverbs 22:15). I can still remember, as a boy, my father's words to me before he gave me a good taste of his belt of correction for my disobedience. I now realize that it did "hurt him more than it hurt me" because he loved me. As the Scriptures instruct, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24).

Blackstone spoke of a timeless truth when he said that an undisciplined child grows up to be an undisciplined adult, "like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others and shameful to himself." If we allow the state to erode parental authority over discipline and education, we will reap, among other things, higher crime and even lower morality in the next generation. Abandoning God's unchanging law is a sure way to really see the times "a-changin'," but not for the better.